Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

"To enable Smart + Strong to use and publish your information that you choose to make publicly available on AIDSmeds.com in connection with your use of the Service ("User Information"), the User grants Smart + Strong a nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicenseable (through multiple tiers) right (including all moral rights) and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, perform, prepare derivative works from, distribute, and display User Information (in whole or in part) and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed, for the full term of any rights that may exist in User Information."

Read that carefully.

Did any or all of you know this?

Do you accept the argument that this is just legalese? And that we're protected by the moderators because their intentions are good?

Read especially the words "perpetual" and "irrevocable" and the multiple clauses about any form whatsoever.

And also note: that so far what we've recieved from the forum owner is a statement saying that he will fight tooth and nail and that if he should lose he'll resign. Wow. A resignation in support. Great comfort.

This is unacceptable.

Well, to me it is.

These forums mean the world to me and giving them up is equivalent to parting a limb. And I'm not given to hyperbole. I'm fighting tooth and nail because I love these forums.

But unless those terms of use are changed, and Peter's autocracy restrained, I do not see myself returning here.

Au revoir, possibly adieu.

Jay

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

Wow. Of course. Sudden enlightenment. Thank you so much Rod. Such wise words.

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

How many of the users of these forums have read the fine print, the "terms of use" and so on? Do you want to give me a guess, Rod? Those who haven't, it's all their bad eh?

The point of this thread/post -- and Rod, you seem to be assuming that I'm feebleminded or deluded -- is that the vast majority of forum members have NOT read the egregious "terms of use." Is that a debatable topic? I hope so, though I doubt it.

And I want, now, for forum members to read and realize what they're signing up for. And have the option of not signing up at all, given the conditions.

Jay

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

Puck, how many standard (or boiler plate) TOS have you read? I've been accumulating a lot recently, and many of them read nothing like the S+S one.

Second, why give it a rest? Given that certain terms of service are "standard" must we settle for them?

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

This is getting obsessive. lydgate, I like you, I really do and have. If stuff like this bothers you so much why did you not read the TOS and forward it to your lawyer in the first place. No, I didn't read it -- I never read crap like that on the internet. I just don't care. If I was managing a business, sure -- been there done that tons. Otherwise when I go onto the internet I just assume that I'm sitting naked in the media strip of I-95.

But I will say, it's your personal right to be obsessive about this if you want. If you can convince them to change it to something more amenable to you than go for it, though I've not seen you offer what language you'd like specifically in place of this -- or you just want this entire clause stricken?

Of course, they'll probably just tell you to go jump off a cliff if you don't like it. I would assume they already paid some legal person to look over it to begin with for how ever many $100's an hour.

Well, some TOS are more "boilerplate" than others, so I'm not willing (yet) to extend that label as previous poster puck did. I just tried to see what the TOS was on another web board, with a similar association with a larger corporately owned magazine is, but I couldn't locate it on the forum, perhaps because I'm already registered. I posted a request for someone to point out the link or something so when I find it I'll post here what I find.

However, I will say I don't find using language labeling Peter a dictator to be very useful to the discourse, but I digress.

I've seen this type of language before. Some websites have differing versions (for example, some only give the owners and operators of the site permission to use the information as it was intended). But most seem to request full license of any information posted on their website.

This is a bit long, but here are some other examples (well two, one from Yahoo! and the other from the BBC):

Quote

Contributions to bbc.co.uk9. Where you are invited to submit any contribution to bbc.co.uk (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) you agree, by submitting your contribution, to grant the BBC a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licenseable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, play, make available to the public, and exercise all copyright and publicity rights with respect to your contribution worldwide and/or to incorporate your contribution in other works in any media now known or later developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in your contribution, and in accordance with privacy restrictions set out in the BBC's Privacy Policy. If you do not want to grant to the BBC the rights set out above, please do not submit your contribution to bbc.co.uk.

and Yahoo!

Quote

CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE SERVICE

Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Service. With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Service. With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

"Publicly accessible" areas of the Service are those areas of the Yahoo! network of properties that are intended by Yahoo! to be available to the general public. By way of example, publicly accessible areas of the Service would include Yahoo! Message Boards and portions of Yahoo! Groups, Photos and Briefcase that are open to both members and visitors. However, publicly accessible areas of the Service would not include portions of Yahoo! Groups that are limited to members, Yahoo! services intended for private communication such as Yahoo! Mail or Yahoo! Messenger, or areas off of the Yahoo! network of properties such as portions of World Wide Web sites that are accessible via hypertext or other links but are not hosted or served by Yahoo!.

Andy: for the record, I used the adverbial form, not the adjective or the noun. There is a rather important difference (though no doubt this will be considered mere sophistry or pedantry).

Philly: I'm not the obsessive type, but yeah, I've been fairly preoccupied with this subject for the last two days. It is fair and gracious of you to grant that I have the liberty to "obsess" over whatever subject I choose.

As for the rest... Isn't there a distinction between belonging to a Yahoo! group -- about favorite Bette Davis movies say -- and belonging to an HIV support group? Isn't there a difference between submitting a contribution to a news organization (an op ed piece about the Iraq war, say) and submitting intimate stories about yourself in a site that concerns itself with a serious illness without a cure?

In other words, our personal narratives about HIV deserve better than "boiler plate" terms. This is blindingly obvious to me.

For the umpteenth time, this is not about anyone's bad intentions but about (1) doing what is ethically correct by/for the HIV-positive voice, and (2) future possibilities. I'm quite happy to sound like a broken record about this.

I'm going to permit myself a catty/sarcastic remark. To those of you who've said I can always leave if I don't like the terms or whatever: Thank you so much! My eyes are finally opened! Truly revelatory advice!

Jay

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

"I love the way these things go. Those of us expressing fear and concern are constantly being criticised and belittled by those who don't have the fear/concern."

Even though this poster's fears and concerns are a little different from mine: My feelings exactly.

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

I would think that was fairly standard practice... Myspace does the exact same thing. Any picture you put up, any blog you write, any comment you send a friend is Myspace's property (I would imagine because you're using Myspace's servers).

As usual, let me bring in another realm? Will writing? When you have a will written by a very good attorney, he or she has to come up with every possible contingency. Want to give something to the New York Public Library. Great. Will do. BUT what if the NYPL ceases to exist? Ok, insert the provision that in the even that the NYPL ceases to exist, your money would go to X and if X isn't there, Y....

In legal defense of the Owners of Record, you have to cover all possible situations including those which are likely and those which are unlikely but still possible. It does not mean that S and S have a 24 set of volumes planned based on threads from the forums. But you can't go backwards, legally. You can't change the rules to enable yourself to take back rights which you didn't give yourself ahead of time. You can do this with wills, but only while you can be deemed legally competent and are still alive. So, too, you can't not have the rights to 'use' threads if you allow threads to be recorded before you thought of this unless, as with a credit card, the holder of the card agrees to a change in terms.

Yes, it's awkward here in the forums. It can make many people uncomfortable. Win

Logged

Winthrop Smith has published three collections of poetry: Ghetto: From The First Five; The Weigh-In: Collected Poems; Skin Check: New York Poems. The last was published in December 2006. He has a work-in-progress underway titled Starting Positions.

But you can't go backwards, legally. You can't change the rules to enable yourself to take back rights which you didn't give yourself ahead of time. You can do this with wills, but only while you can be deemed legally competent and are still alive. So, too, you can't not have the rights to 'use' threads if you allow threads to be recorded before you thought of this unless, as with a credit card, the holder of the card agrees to a change in terms.

This is somewhat opaque to me.

A change in terms or conditions, by the issuers of those terms and conditions, is surely possible. Or is this what you're denying (can't go backwards legally and all that)?

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

"In addition, by posting Content on an AOL Service, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium."

AOL certainly has lots of HIV-related chat rooms where folks frequently reveal as much as folks do here.

Same thing with Gay.com -- VERY active HIV-specific chat rooms. Here's their language:

"Through certain areas of the Network you may post, upload or submit material ("Submissions") for viewing by others or view Submissions of other users (e.g., communities, forums, personals, Member profiles, discussion rooms or video conferencing rooms). By making a Submission, you (a) automatically grant the Company and its affiliates and licensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and display and distribute the content of the Submission (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or hereafter developed, (b) permit any other user of the Network to access, view, store, or reproduce the Submission for that user's personal use, and (c) represent and warrant that public posting and use of your Submission by the Company and its affiliates and licensees will not infringe or violate the rights of any third party."

A change in terms or conditions, by the issuers of those terms and conditions, is surely possible. Or is this what you're denying (can't go backwards legally and all that)?

Sorry about the opaqueness, Jay. Yes, as with credit card companies, you, the Company, can change the terms and conditions, but with limitations. The Company can increase the rate. But the holder of the card can refuse to accept the increase and can freeze his or her account, to new charges but also to this proposed rate increase (unless, of course, the holder has violated pre-existing terms and conditions which caused the rate increase). If we are talking about content somewhere, the Owners of Record can't impose rights which they didn't have affecting posts made and unchangeable by the posters before those rights were imposed. The Owner of Record can impose new rights, but only affecting future posts or by allowing someone to remove existing posts. That's what I meant by you can't go, legally, backwards. What we would see is something by which we would have to acknowledge a change of terms and conditions. Win

Logged

Winthrop Smith has published three collections of poetry: Ghetto: From The First Five; The Weigh-In: Collected Poems; Skin Check: New York Poems. The last was published in December 2006. He has a work-in-progress underway titled Starting Positions.

Something to keep in mind, when signing up for the forums - you had to agree to the Terms of Membership, which do not address many of the issues in the Terms of Service. From what I understand, that issue has been addressed for those who sign up in the future, but acknowledging the TOS were not part of the requirement to be a member in the past and I can see where someone could think the terms of membership were the only rules that had to be followed to be a member. Unlike sites like Gay.com and Yahoo Messenger for instance where you cannot join until you acknowledge the TOS, not just some Terms of Membership.

And for me - the issue remains alive as long as people keep posting - so if those who think it should die off would stop posting then their wish would be granted right? Nothing makes me feel better then being told in essence - go away, you're an irritating, misinformed idiot in the minority who didn't read the fine print and if you're upset about it now, too bad, live with it and stop whining.

I'll do my best in the future not to be such an irritant as all this cumbersome typing back and forth is hard to schedule in between reading the fine print on the sites I visit.

Logged

And I wished for guidance, and I wished for peaceI could see the lightning; somewhere in the eastAnd I wished for affection, and I wished for calmAs I lay there - Nervous in the light of dawn

So let me get this right. When we started using the new / POZ forums a while back, were there both 'Terms of Use' and 'Terms of Membership'? I only remember agreeing to one... the 'Terms of Membership', but I could be wrong. Can the forum owners retroactively add a 'Terms of' and assume members agreed to it when it wasn't available at the time of membership? If anybody can remember what 'Terms' we agreed to back last spring when the forums changed, I'd like to know, 'cause I sure can't remember.

Wasn't it your idea Tucsonwoody to put a time limit on the edit of the posts? You didn't take into the regards of the other members of the forum. I personally didn't see anything wrong with it, but there were several that did. And there was no advance warning posted on each forum for people to read about the edit time period, whereas, there was with the TOA.

So, I assume I agreed to 'Terms of Membership'. I seem to remember that some of the other 'Terms' hadn't been worked out, but I sure don't remember agreeing to more than one 'Terms' (and not the one that was just updated).

Yeah sort of brings to mind the legendary AOL TOS. By the way, Yahoo has a policy I hate: at the bottom of any yahoo mail or My Yahoo page it says, "NOTICE we collect personal information on this site". I hate it but hey, with 300 million people in the country, I hope they have better things to do than study what I'm saying and who I'm saying it to!Sam

No RR - it was not my idea...I just happened to see the postings from Peter when he said he had implemented the change and a member (or maybe former member now) had said he couldn't figure out why he couldn't change an older thread as a result of that immediate change... So I thought I'd post something so other members would know why they couldn't change or delete a post in case they didn't see Peter's post which was in a different thread.

"Quote from: dtwpuck on Yesterday at 10:03:50 AMPeter... which begs the question... most of the busy forums I've been a part of (usually sports or political) have a time limit after which the writer can edit a posting, usually a few hours or so... mostly just to be able to fix typos and stuff. It is usually a standard feature in the software and is implemented just for the purposes mentioned here. It is somewhat unusual that this forum has no limit like that.

Thanks for the suggestion! I just checked our software manual, and we DO have that option. I've set the time limit for editing one's posts to 48 hours.

Peter"

« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 01:42:25 PM by Tucsonwoody »

Logged

And I wished for guidance, and I wished for peaceI could see the lightning; somewhere in the eastAnd I wished for affection, and I wished for calmAs I lay there - Nervous in the light of dawn

Peter, I did not call you a "dictator." I'm not going to say any more about that. (Insert emoticon expressing slightly amused exasperation.)

Yes, I see the pattern plenty.

Your response begs my questions/concerns. It amounts to saying, others do it (have these terms), we do it also, what's the big deal. It's "standard." You've already said that and I've already responded to that.

You said something recently about building the best damned HIV-related forums on the Internet. And you did. You have.

May I say publicly how much I admire what you've built? (And again express my admiration for the moderators' tirelessness?) I also realize that in expanding the structure (continuing the architectural metaphor) certain hard choices, certain compromises have to be made.

But the "best" is something that by definition is not "standard." I trust you see that I'm using these two words as a convenient simple-to-understand way to make a serious point. I see the TOS as a fundamental structural defect in the edifice that you've created. (I can see people rolling their eyes: Oh NOES, more pompous verbosity! )

That AOL and Gay.com and other huge sites have similiar Terms is, for me anyway, besides the point. The question is should the "best" HIV-related forums on the Internet -- i.e AIDSmeds -- also have those Terms. (There are also problems in your comparison of these forums to sites like AOL and Gay.com but I won't go into that.)

I'm writing in good faith. I'm assuming you are. Though it remains unclear to me whether you've read my posts with any true care (yes, I know it's been a long tough week, it has for me too for lots of reasons).

What me and some others want -- a revision of some sections of the TOS -- seems precisely what's not going to happen. A revision that would give back to the HIV-positive individual posting here the ethically correct right to his or her own words and life stories. Either in the form of (1) giving copyright back outright, or (2) some form of legally binding statement/reassurance that no "material" will be used, ever, without the individual's express permission.

Is that possible? From the tenor of your posts it seems highly unlikely. If it's not possible, can we know why it's not? Or even have some lawyer at S+S explain it to us? I can see a few potential problems, but I would like to see them clearly articulated; and if they're in fact insurmountable problems.

It seems like that we're at an impasse (fancy word: aporia) here. So perhaps further discussion is fruitless. A wants X; B either will not or is unable to (I'm allowing you that possibility) give A that X. That's that then. Some people will walk away. Some will "dilute" their posts. No more talk, say, of drug addictions (possibly by people who need the support the most). Or people who don't want their voices of depression/mental illness to be in the public domain and someone else's property. The forums will have lost some valuable voices. That is of course sad. But the forums will continue, probably continue to expand and flourish.

Though I do feel "suckered" and disappointed (see David_NC's reply #115 in the "Formal Complaint" thread), I guess I'd better just shrug and say, Life goes on, the world keeps turning.

Shrugging but still earnest,

Jay

« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 08:47:14 PM by lydgate »

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

OK We get it; these terms of service are the norms, not the exceptions. That doesn't make it right nor do we have to agree with them. This place is the lesser of evils but the terms are still bullshit. What it basically says is that anything I'm typing is no longer mine. That's f'ed up and I don't agree with the rigidity of the terms of service here, but I'm still here until a better forum comes along (and one will, it's just a matter of time). Sam p.s. why are we getting into this discussion now? It's not a new policy.

How many of the users of these forums have read the fine print, the "terms of use" and so on? Do you want to give me a guess, Rod? Those who haven't, it's all their bad eh?

The point of this thread/post -- and Rod, you seem to be assuming that I'm feebleminded or deluded -- is that the vast majority of forum members have NOT read the egregious "terms of use." Is that a debatable topic? I hope so, though I doubt it.

And I want, now, for forum members to read and realize what they're signing up for. And have the option of not signing up at all, given the conditions.

Jay

Jay, its called personal responsibility and it is really lacking in our extremely litigious society. It was YOUR responsibility to read it not anyone elses. You and you alone should be responsible for what you choose to accept.

I agree with the others that you are doing this in a wonderful manner so far. You are engaging in generally thoughtful discussions on something you feel passionate about and you are doing so in an aggressive but civilized way. While I vehemently disagree with your stance on this, you have gained even more respect from me by the way you are doing it.

Logged

LIFE is not a race to the grave with the intention of arriving safelyin a pretty and well-preserved body, but, rather to skid in broadside,thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming--WOW! WHAT ARIDE!!!

Through his job as a debt collector, Dan has access to every single US citizen's data.Of course he is legally obliged not to make any of the facts known to others.He only uses it for his job.

My point is : I have e.g. seen what "big brother " knows about him. It would freak most of you out.How about reading the names of your closest friends on there...yes, I wonder too...So, if you are afraid these Forums are revealing much more then you want others to know, rest assured.

Those who come on here to have a sneak-preview of your life, will be satisfied. So what.Those who want to find specific information about you most certainly have it already (see above).

As long as I can keep my bankcard codes a secret to the general public, I am fine.

Hey, every game has it's rule. Enjoy it.

Hermie

Logged

Diagnosed in 1987 and still kickingKivexa (Epzicom),Tivicay once daily

What me and some others want -- a revision of some sections of the TOS -- seems precisely what's not going to happen. A revision that would give back to the HIV-positive individual posting here the ethically correct right to his or her own words and life stories. Either in the form of (1) giving copyright back outright, or (2) some form of legally binding statement/reassurance that no "material" will be used, ever, without the individual's express permission.

So the above is the only thing you want? Do you want anything else? If yes, I suggest you write *one* treatise itemizing each and every change you'd like to see and make sure it captures the essence of this whole shabang for the sake of simplicity. It could be helpful if you use bullet points and list "in order of importance."

Number (2) seems like a tall order. I'm gonna guess it would be $costly$ and take a lot of time but that's just a guess.

I know my way pretty well around the front and back-end of a computer, servers, IT technology, etc. and without getting into specifics (privacy!), I have a good grasp of internet privacy and in my honest opinion their is absolutely none.

Seeing as how this issue has struck a cord in so many, it might serve the community well if whoever runs this site stickied a thread or added a new "agreement" upon entry letting people know the straight out facts - because what seems obvious to some like me is not so obvious to others. And that is understandable.

Then let each individual make an informed decision based on the facts and risks they are/are not willing to take in the name of disclosure.

If you log on here from work, some people may think if they hide their screen from prying eyes and delete their cache/temporary internet files, that no one in their company will know - but that ain't the case. Your IT person can see every site you go to and many companies back up this information. And I've seen many IT people gossip and tell others that "so and so is a porn lover" and even worse.

And while I don't know S&S policy, it is a large company and I would bet they back up these forums. Even if you delete information it may (or may not) be stored. And while some of the moderators or people with access to the back end of this site seem trustworthy to some ( at least the ones we see), I don't know any of them and disclosing where I work or any of that is not an acceptable risk for me and I act accordingly to protect my privacy.

I have no clue what specific information is saved or disclosed or who knows what at this site, but I have an idea based on what I've seen in my experiences and I am cognizant of that when I'm here or any other website. Back end tracking software often documents locations, IPs, ISPs, browser information, operating systems, and more depending on the software.

A Republican a-hole congresman was set to pass legislation requiring all companies to keep data gathered from visitors to websites on files so that law enforcement could expediate and increase the apprehension of predators. And I'm sure if this passed it would only be a matter of time before this information is used to nab peple for much less egregious crimes.

My advice - if you are partaking or advocating something illegal, be aware that you are taking a risk. In my opinion, a big risk. If there is something you don't want others to know and think "they'll never come here so who cares," I think that's wishful thinking and not very smart.

My intent is not to scare - as many know that is not my thing. I'm just saying if disclosure is a sensitive issue you shouldn't be lulled into a false sense of security because someone says this a "safe place." Know the facts and make decisions accordingly. Knowledge is power.

Mike

Logged

"Get your medical advice from Doctors or medical professionals who you trust and know your history."

"Beware of the fortune teller doom and gloomers who seek to bring you down and are only looking for company, purpose and validation - not your best physical/mental interests."

"You know you all are saying that this is incurable. When the real thing you should be saying is it's not curable at the present time' because as we know, the great strides we've made in medicine." - Elizabeth Edwards

Once again, I'd like to point out that when we say this is a safe place, we mean that we try to keep people from being personally attacked in these forums. We keep the place safe from snake-oil salespeople and denialists. We mean safe in that sense, not in the privacy sense because as we all know, the internet is NOT a private place.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Once again, I'd like to point out that when we say this is a safe place, we mean that we try to keep people from being personally attacked in these forums. We keep the place safe from snake-oil salespeople and denialists. We mean safe in that sense, not in the privacy sense because as we all know, the internet is NOT a private place.

Ann

Yes, but Mike's point is that some people, as evidenced here, DON'T GET THAT. Maybe there should be a disclaimer our of courtesy aimed at the as-yet-not-disclosed to emphasize that the internet is not a place to post pictures of your vacation if you are in the closet. Just a though. People seem to think that because the subject matter here is HIV that only those infected with HIV, or who think they are, are accessing the forum. Anyone who googles "HIV" quite possibly will end up here, and from there it's easy to stumble on one post or another and say "OMG my neighbor is infected!"

You know... just add a common sense clause for those that are naive about disclosure issues. To be honest AIDSmeds.com is LESS safe than a private support group in a church in an obscure part of a city.

However, at the same time this clause can instruct those concerned what to do and what not to do to assist in maintaining a safe zone with their profile, postings, etc. You know, simple things like not using a screen name like "Bob-N-Peoria"

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

Yes, but Mike's point is that some people, as evidenced here, DON'T GET THAT. Maybe there should be a disclaimer our of courtesy aimed at the as-yet-not-disclosed to emphasize that the internet is not a place to post pictures of your vacation if you are in the closet. Just a though. People seem to think that because the subject matter here is HIV that only those infected with HIV, or who think they are, are accessing the forum. Anyone who googles "HIV" quite possibly will end up here, and from there it's easy to stumble on one post or another and say "OMG my neighbor is infected!"

You know... just add a common sense clause for those that are naive about disclosure issues. To be honest AIDSmeds.com is LESS safe than a private support group in a church in an obscure part of a city.

However, at the same time this clause can instruct those concerned what to do and what not to do to assist in maintaining a safe zone with their profile, postings, etc. You know, simple things like not using a screen name like "Bob-N-Peoria"

ę Last Edit: Today at 08:19:20 PM by philly267 Ľ

Yet, Philly, you get insulted when someone calls a post of yours 'condescending' . This post reeks of condescension. But I guess you just DONT GET THAT.

There's an old saying, "Never write down anything that you don't want someone else to read or know."

Then what's the damn point of these forums in the first place? If you change the "someone" in your maxim to "anyone"? (This being the Internet blah blah and the submissions someone else's property.) I won't elaborate. I've already done so ad nauseam, to the possible irritation of many.

Jay

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

The entire tone is. Not to mention you've referred to my issues, based on my postings throughout the forums these past couple of days, 3 times specifically.

Your constant beating of the horse that people dont get that the Internet is wide open, is not only incorrect, but tiring.

I don't know who your neighbors are, but they must all be googling HIV for some reason. I'm sure most of mine don't.

I used to post in a place that was like a little town in the middle of Omaha. Now I'm posting in a place that's more like NYC. Get it?

Entire tone? I asked for specifics. You offer none.

Amazingly I"m not the only person posting the same sentiments that I have, and numerous other posters have agreed with me. Yet you call me condescending. Sounds more like you have a personal issue with me, and me alone. I still fail to see what I've said is specifically condescending, or even aimed at one person in particular. I'm quite sorry if you take it that way.

I do not know if my neighbors google HIV. I suppose if they are interested in the subject matter they may do so. If you are implying that I live in a gay ghetto where everyone is obsessing with the issue I can assure you I do not. I live in a neighborhood populated by retired Italian people and and handful of Mexican immigrants. But thanks for the baseless assumptions on my life. Quite telling, in fact.

I don't appreciate your emotional issues with this subject being aimed squarely at me, when many, MANY others have state the exact same opinion that I have. If I didn't know better I would state you have some unsettled issue with me that you do not wish to elaborate on.